Curriculum Development in Singapore and Turkey: Reflections of Administrative Structure and Educational Reforms

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to investigate the curriculum development process in Singapore and Turkey comparatively regarding administrative structure and educational reforms. As a qualitative descriptive research, this comparative study is expected to contribute to evaluation of possible strengths and weaknesses of the two countries in curriculum development and support the adoption of effective policies and practices by policymakers. Considering the purpose of the study, the data were collected through document analysis. Content analysis was utilized to analyze qualitative data gathered from the official documents and research reports. Results revealed similarities and differences in terms of centralized approach, administrative units and their missions in Singapore and Turkey with respect to administrative structure of curriculum development. Regarding the reflections of educational reforms on curriculum development process and policies, it was found that although the educational reforms were implemented for similar purposes in the two countries, the way of implementation and sustainability demonstrated considerable differences in terms of conditions such as planning, delivery, timing and monitoring. It is recommended that regulations should be made in Turkey such as establishing research mechanisms to systematically study on the integration of curriculum policy and practice to fill in the gap between them.

Keywords

• Curriculum development
• Educational reforms
• Comparative education

Singapur ve Türkiye’de Yönetsel Yapı ve Eğitim Reformları Bağlamında Program Geliştirme Süreçleri

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Singapur ve Türkiye’deki program geliştirme süreçlerini yönetsel yapı ve eğitim reformları bağlamında karşılaştırarak incelemektir. Betimsel nitelik taşıyan bu nitel karşılaştırmalı eğitim çalışmasının program geliştirme açısından iki ülkenin olası güçlü ve zayıf yönlerini değerlendirme boyutunda alana katkı sağlaması beklenmektedir. Çalışmanın verileri dokuman incelemesi yoluyla toplanmıştır. Resmi belge ve araştırma raporlarından elde edilen verilerin analizinde içerik analizinden yararlanılmıştır. Çalışmadan elde edilen bulgular program geliştirmede yönetsel yapı açısından Singapur ve Türkiye’nin merkeziyetçi yapı, yönetsel birimler ve görevleri bağlamında benzerlik ve farklılıklarını olduğunu göstermektedir. Eğitim reformlarının program geliştirme uygulamalarına yansımaları bakımından ise iki ülkede de eğitim reformlarının benzer amaçlara hizmet etmesine rağmen reformların uygulanışı ve sürdürülebilirliğinin planlama, zamanlama ve izleme gibi konularda farklılıklar gösterdiği görülmektedir. Bu bağlamda Türkiye’de politika ve uygulama bütünlüğünü sistematik olarak inceleyecek araştırma mekanizmalarının kurulması gibi düzenlemelerin yapılması önerilmiştir.

Keywords

• Eğitim reformları
• karşılaştırmalı eğitim
• program geliştirme

References

1. Akınoğlu, O. (2005). Türkiye’de uygulanan ve değişen eğitim programlarının psikolojik temelleri [Psychological foundations of changing curriculum implemented in Turkey]. M. U. Journal of Educational Sciences, 22, 31-46.
2. Aşkar, P., Paykoç, F., Korkut, F., Olkun, S., Yangın, B., & Çakıroğlu, J. (2005). Yeni öğretim programlarını inceleme ve değerlendirme raporu [A review and evaluation report on new curricula]. Retrieved from http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/vol5say1/yenimufredat_raporu[1].pdf
3. Ata, B. (2001). 1924 Türk basını ışığında Amerikalı eğitimci John Dewey’in Türkiye seyehati. [An American educator, John Dewey's Journey to Turkey under the light of 1924 Turkish press]. G. U. Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 21(3), 193-207.
4. Baildon, M., Sim, J. B. Y., & Paculdar, A. (2016). A tale of two countries: comparing civic education in the Philippines and Singapore. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 46(1), 93-115.
5. Bal, B., & Başar, E. (2014). Finlandiya, Almanya, Singapur ve Türkiye’nin eğitim sistemleri açısından kademeler arası geçiş sistemlerinin karşılaştırılması [Comparison of interstage transition system of Finland, Germany, Singapore and Turkey in terms of education systems]. Çukurova University Journal of Turkology. Retrieved from http://turkoloji.cu.edu.tr/pdf/belgin_bal_erdogan_basar_kademeler_arasi_gecis_sistemi.pdf
6. Bray, M., & Jiang, K. (2014). Comparing systems. In M. Bray, B. Adamson, & M. Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research: Approaches and methods (pp. 139-166). Springer International Publishing.
7. BoE. (2009). 1926’dan 2009’a Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı albümü [Album of Board of Education from 1926 to 2009]. MoNE.
8. BoE. (2017a). Birimlerimiz [Our Departments]. Retrieved from https://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/birimlerimiz/kategori/3

9. BoE. (2017b). Öğretim programları daire başkanlığı [Department of curriculum]. Retrieved from https://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/ogretim-programlari-daire-baskanligi/icerik/207
10. BoE. (2017c). İzleme ve değerlendirme daire başkanlığı [Department of monitoring and evaluation]. Retrieved from https://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/izleme-ve-degerlendirme-daire-baskanligi/icerik/204
11. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
12. CIA. (2018). The world factbook. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sn.html
13. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(10), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285962
14. Demirel, Ö. (1992). Türkiye’de program geliştirme uygulamaları [Curriculum development practices in Turkey]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 7, 27-43.
15. Derman, M., & Gürbüz, H. (2015). Avustralya, Singapur, İrlanda, Kanada ve Türkiye’nin ilköğretim fen bilimleri öğretim programlarında çevre kazanımı verilen konuların incelenmesi [An investigation of the attainments related to environmental issues in elementary science curricula in Australia, Singapore, Ireland, Canada and Turkey]. The Journal of Academic Social Sciences, 3(9), 411-426.
16. DRDE. (1997). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığında program çalışmaları [Curriculum studies in Ministry of National Education]. Ankara.
17. DRDE. (1999). Müfredat laboratuvar okulları gelişimi değerlendirme araştırması [Research on curriculum laboratory schools development assessment]. Ankara.
18. DRDE. (2005). PISA 2003 projesi: Ulusal nihai rapor [PISA 2003 Project: National final report]. National Education Press.
19. Erbaş, A. K., Alacacı, C., & Bulut, M. (2012). Türk, Singapur ve Amerikan matematik ders kitaplarının bir karşılaştırması [Comparison of mathematics coursebooks in Turkey, Singapore and the USA]. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(3), 2311-2330.
20. Erbilgin, E., & Boz, B. (2013). Matematik öğretmeni yetiştirme programlarımızın Finlandiya, Japonya ve Singapur Programları ile karşılaştırması [Comparison of mathematics teacher training programs in Turkey, Finland, Japan and Singapore] [Special Issue]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 1, 156-170.
21. Erdem, A. R. (2005). İlköğretimimizin gelişimi ve bugün gelinen nokta [The development of our primary education and the point reached today]. Journal of University and Community, 5(2), 1-15.
22. Erdoğan, İ. (2012). Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu: Türk milli eğitim sisteminin yasama organı [Board of Education: Legislative body of the Turkish national education system]. In C. Öztürk, & İ. Fındıkçı, (Eds.). Yahya Akyüz’e armağan. Pegem Academy.
23. Fan, L., & Zhu, Y. (2007). Representation of problem-solving procedures: A comparative look at China, Singapore, and US mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 61–75.
24. Gopinathan, S., & Deng, Z. (2006). Fostering school-based curriculum development in the context of new educational initiatives in Singapore. Planning and Changing, 37(1,2), 93-110.
25. Göçen Kabaran, G., & Görgen, İ. (2016). Güney Kore, Hong Kong, Singapur ve Türkiye’deki öğretmen yetiştirme sistemlerinin karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi [Comparative study on teacher education systems in South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore and Turkey.]. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 5(2), 478-495.
26. Gözütok, D. (2003). Türkiye’de program geliştirme çalışmaları [Curriculum development studies in Turkey]. Journal of National Education, 160. Retrieved from http://dhgm.meb.gov.tr/yayimlar/dergiler/Milli_Egitim_Dergisi/160/gozutok.htm
27. Hairon, S., & Tan, C. (2017). Professional learning communities in Singapore and Shanghai: Implications for teacher collaboration. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 47(1), 91-104.
28. Hairon, S., Kheng Chua, C. S., & Neo, W. L. (2018). School-based curriculum development in Singapore: A case study of a primary school. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38(4), 518-532. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2018.1530192
29. Huang, M., & Bond, F. (2016). Comparison and contrast of Chinese curricula between China and Singapore: Challenges and prospects. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0023-6
30. Kazamias, A. (2009). Forgotten men, forgotten themes: The historical-philosophical-cultural and liberal humanist motif in comparative education. In R. Cowen & A. M. Kazamias (Eds.), International handbook of comparative education (pp. 37-58). Springer Science + Business Media.
31. Kılıç, R. (1998). Milli Eğitimi Geliştirme Projesi kapsamında müfredat laboratuvar okulları uygulaması [Evaluation of curriculum laboratory schools’ implementation under the cover of the National Education Development Project]. Education and Science, 22(109), 32-36.
32. Koh, A. (2002). Towards a critical pedagogy: Creating 'thinking schools' in Singapore. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(3), 255-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270110092608
33. Koh, A. (2004). Singapore education in “New Times”: Global/local imperatives. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 25(3), 335-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630042000247917
34. Korkmaz, Z. (1998). Harf inkılabı: Harf İnkılâbının 70. Yıl Dönümü" dolayısıyla, 26 Eylül 1998 tarihinde Dolmabahçe (İstanbul) Sarayı'nda yapılan konuşma metni [Alphabet reform: Text of the speech made in Dolmabahçe (Istanbul) Palace on 26 September 1998 due to the "70th Anniversary of the Letter Revolutions"]. Retrieved from http://turkoloji.cu.edu.tr/YENI%20TURK%20DILI/8.php
35. Lambert, V. A., & Lambert, C. E. (2012). Qualitative descriptive research: An acceptable design [Editorial]. Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research, 16(4), 255-256.
36. Levent, F., & Yazıcı, E. (2014). Singapur eğitim sisteminin başarısına etki eden faktörlerin incelenmesi [Investigation of the factors effecting the success of Singapore education system]. M. U. Journal of Educational Sciences, 39, 121-143.
37. Lianghuo F., & Yan Z. (2007). Representation of problem-solving procedures: A comparative look at China, Singapore, and US mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 61-75.
38. Lloyd, J. K., Smith, R. G., Fay, C. L., Khang, G.N., Wah, L. L. K., & Sai, C.L. (1998). Subject knowledge for science teaching at primary level: A comparison of pre‐service teachers in England and Singapore. International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 521-532.
39. Marginson, S. (2011). Higher education in East Asia and Singapore: Rise of the Confucian Model. Higher Education, 61(5), 587-611.
40. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
41. MoD. (2014). Onuncu kalkınma planı (2014-2018): Eğitim sisteminin kalitesinin artırılması: Özel ihtisas komisyonu raporu [The 10th development plan (2014-2018): Increasing the quality of the education system: Specialized commission report]. Ankara.
42. MoNE. (2012). 12 yıl zorunlu eğitim: Sorular – cevaplar [12 years compulsory education: Questions-answers]. Ankara.
43. MoNE. (2013a). Ortaokul matematik dersi (5, 6, 7 ve 8, sınıflar) öğretim programı [Middle school (5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades) mathematics curriculum]. Ankara.
44. MoNE. (2013b). Derslerin eğitim programları güncellendi [Curricula have been updated]. Retrieved from http://www.meb.gov.tr/derslerin-egitim-programlari-guncellendi/haber/5902/tr
45. MoNE. (2014). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı okul öncesi eğitim ve ilköğretim kurumları yönetmeliği. [Pre-school and primary schools’ regulation of Ministry of National Education] (Number: 29072). Retrieved from http://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/html/ilkveokuloncyon_0/ilkveokuloncyon_0.html
46. MoNE. (2016a). Uluslararası öğrenci değerlendirme programı PISA 2015 ulusal raporu [International student assessment program PISA 2015 national report]. Ankara.
47. MoNE. (2016b). TIMMS 2015 ulusal matematik ve fen bilimleri ön raporu: 4. ve 8. sınıflar [TIMSS 2015 preliminary report of national mathematics and science: 4th and 8th grades]. Ankara.
48. MoNE. (2016c). Eğitimde FATIH Projesi hakkında [About FATIH Project]. Retrieved from http://fatihprojesi.meb.gov.tr/proje-hakkinda/
49. MoNE. (2017a). Sıkça sorulan sorular [Frequently-asked questions]. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/SSS.aspx
50. MoNE. (2017b). Müfredatta yenileme ve değişiklik çalışmalarımız üzerine [On our studies for curriculum innovation and change]. Retrieved from https://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_07/18160003_basin_aciklamasi-program.pdf
51. MoNE. (2018a). Matematik dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) [Mathematics curriculum (primary and middle school 1st-8th grades)]. Ankara.
52. MoNE. (2018b). İngilizce dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) [English curriculum (primary and middle school 2nd-8th grades)]. Ankara.
53. MoNE Department of Strategy Development. (2015). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı 2015–2019 stratejik planı [Ministry of National Education 2015-2019 strategic plan]. Ankara.
54. MoNE Regulations [MEB Mevzuat]. (2012). Talim ve terbiye kurulu başkanlığı yönetmeliği [Regulation of Board of Education]. Retrieved from http://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/html/talimterbiye/yonetmelik.pdf
55. Moore, A. (2015). Understanding the school curriculum: Theory, politics and principles. Routledge.
56. National Education Statistics (2017/2018). Örgün eğitim [Formal education]. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Strateji Geliştirme Başkanlığı.
57. Mok, K. H. (2000). Impact of globalization: A study of quality assurance systems of higher education in Hong Kong and Singapore. Comparative Education Review, 44(2), 148-174.
58. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Goh, S., & Cotter, K. (Eds.) (2016). TIMSS 2015 Encyclopedia: Education policy and curriculum in mathematics and science. Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Student Center. Retrieved from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2015/encyclopedia/countries/singapore/
59. Mullis, I. V. S. (2013). Profiles of achievement across reading, mathematics, and science at the fourth grade. In Martin, M. O., & Mullis, I. V. S. (Eds). TIMMS and PIRLS 2011: Relationships among reading, mathematics, and science achievement at the fourth grade – Implications for early learning (pp. 13-65). International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
60. Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
61. NIE. (2012). PISA: Lessons for and from Singapore. CJ Koh Professorial Lecture Series No. 2. NIE/NTU.
62. OECD. (2010). Singapore: Rapid improvement followed by strong performance. Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States. OECD Publishing.
63. OECD. (2013). Eğitim politikası genel görünümü: Türkiye [Educational policies outlook: Turkey]. Retrieved from https://abdigm.meb.gov.tr/projeler/ois/egitim/025.pdf
64. OECD. (2016). Singapore. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/countries/singapore/singapore-pisa.htm
65. Oliva, P. (1997). The curriculum: Theoretical dimensions. Longman.
66. Oliva, P. F., & Gordon, W. (2013). Developing the curriculum (8th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
67. Orakçı, Ş. (2015). Şangay, Hong Kong, Singapur, Japonya ve Güney Kore’nin öğretmen yetiştirme sistemlerinin incelenmesi [Examination of teacher training systems in Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan and South Korea]. Asian Journal of Instruction, 3(2), 26-43.
68. Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2017). Curriculum: Foundations, principles and issues (7th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.
69. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
70. Pinar, W. F. (2004). What is curriculum theory?. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
71. Professional Qualifications Institution. (2015). Türkiye yeterlilikler çerçevesi [Turkish qualifications framework]. Retrieved from https://www.myk.gov.tr/images/articles/TYC/TYC_Yönetmeligi.pdf
72. Rasmussen, J., & Bayer, M. (2014). Comparative study of teaching content in teacher education programmes in Canada, Denmark, Finland and Singapore. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(6), 798-818. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2014.927530
73. Official Gazette. (2011). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığının teşkilat ve görevleri hakkında kanun hükmünde kararname [Decree on the organization and duties of the Ministry of National Education]. Issue: 28054. Retrieved from http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2011/09/20110914-1.htm
74. Sanders, J. S. (2018). National internationalisation of higher education policy in Singapore and Japan: Context and competition. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 49(3), 413-429. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2017.1417025
75. Savaşkan-Akdoğan, N. (2010). Modern ulus-devlet olma yolunda harf inkılabı ve uygulanması [Alphabet reform and its implementations in the way of modern nation-state]. Amme İdaresi Journal, 43(3), 33-59.
76. Seng, Q. K., Keung, H. K., & Cheng, S. K. (2008). Implicit theories of creativity: A comparison of student‐teachers in Hong Kong and Singapore. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 38(1), 71-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920701419959
77. SME. (2004). Press releases: Singapore tops the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2004/pr20041214.htm
78. SME. (2007). Press releases: Singapore’s performance in the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 2006. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/2007/pr20071129.htm
79. SME. (2010). Building a national education system for the 21st century: the Singapore experience. Building blocks for education: Whole system reform. Toronto. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/bb4e/Singapore_CaseStudy2010.pdf
80. SME. (2012a). The case of Singapore: Rethinking curriculum for the 21st century. Retrieved from https://curriculumredesign.org/wp-content/uploads/Paris2012_SingaporeCase_Final-Read-Only-Compatibility-Mode.pdf
81. SME. (2012b). Mathematics syllabus: Primary one to four. Curriculum Planning and Development Division.
82. SME. (2013). Science syllabus: Primary. Curriculum Planning and Development Division.
83. SME. (2015). The desired outcomes of education. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/files/desired-outcomes-of-education.pdf
84. SME. (2016a). About us. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/about
85. SME. (2016b). Primary school education: Preparing your child for tomorrow. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/primary/files/primary-school-education-booklet.pdf
86. SME (2017). Organizational structure. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/about/org-structure
87. SME. (2018). Education statistics digest 2018. Ministry of Education-Singapore.
88. Şeker, M. (2014). Singapur sosyal bilgiler öğretim programı ve bu programın Türkiye sosyal bilgiler öğretim programı ile karşılaştırılması [Social studies curriculum in Singapore and comparison of that curriculum with the one in Turkey]. Turkish Studies-International Periodical for The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 9(2), 1417-1439.
89. Şirin, S. R., & Vatanartıran, S. (2014). PISA 2012 değerlendirmesi: Türkiye için veriye dayalı eğitim reformu önerileri [PISA 2012 assessment: Education reform proposals are based on data for Turkey]. TÜSİAD & TÖDER.
90. Tan, C. (2008). Globalisation, the Singapore state and educational reforms: Towards performativity. Education, Knowledge and Economy, 2(2), 111-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496890802223619
91. TEDMEM. (2015). Ulusal eğitim programı: 2015-2022 [National curriculum: 2015-2022]. Retrieved from https://tedmem.org/download/ulusal-egitim-programi?wpdmdl=1137&refresh=5e6f594a07a361584355658.
92. Tongul, N. (2004). Türk harf inkılabı [Turkish alphabet reform]. Ankara University Türk İnkılâp Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, 33-34, 103-130.
93. TUIK. (2018). Adrese dayalı nüfus kayıt sistemi sonuçları: 2017 [Adressed-based population registry system results: 2017]. Issue: 27587. Retrieved from http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=27587
94. Varış, F. (1976). Eğitimde program geliştirme: Teori ve teknikler [Curriculum development in education: Theory and techniques]. Kalite Press.
95. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
96. Yaman, H., & Göçen, G. (2014). A comparative study on native language arts curricula of Turkey and Singapore. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 10(4), 783-806.
97. Yıldırım, A., & Şimsek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (9. bs.) [Qualitative research in social sciences (9th ed.)] Seçkin Yayıncılık.
98. Yüksel, S. (2003). Türkiye'de program geliştirme çalışmaları ve sorunları [Curriculum development studies and issues in Turkey]. Journal of National Education, 159. Retrieved from http://dhgm.meb.gov.tr/yayimlar/dergiler/Milli_Egitim_Dergisi/159/syuksel.htm
99. Zhao, Y., Zhang, G., Yang, W. E., Kirkland, D., Han, X., & Zhang, J. (2008). A comparative study of educational research in China and the United States. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188790701849826